religious-spirituality-and-violence-vs-media-coverage-mental-disorders

Abstract

Three-quarters of countries around the world have mental health legislation. Compulsory admission to
mental health facilities (also known as involuntary commitment) is a controversial topic. It can impinge
on personal liberty and the right to choose, and carry the risk of abuse for political, social, and other
reasons; yet it can potentially prevent harm to self and others, and assist some people in attaining their
right to healthcare when they may be unable to decide in their own interests. Because of this it is a
concern of medical ethics. All human rights oriented mental health laws require proof of the presence
of a mental disorder as defined by internationally accepted standards, but the type and severity of
disorder that counts can vary in different jurisdictions. The two most often used grounds for involuntary
admission are said to be serious likelihood of immediate or imminent danger to self or others, and the
need for treatment. Applications for someone to be involuntarily admitted usually come from a mental
health practitioner, a family member, a close relative, or a guardian. Human-rights-oriented laws usually
stipulate that independent medical practitioners or other accredited mental health practitioners must
examine the patient separately and that there should be regular, time-bound review by an independent
review body. The individual should also have personal access to independent advocacy. For involuntary
treatment to be administered (by force if necessary), it should be shown that an individual lacks the
mental capacity for informed consent (i.e. to understand treatment information and its implications, and
therefore be able to make an informed choice to either accept or refuse).